Contact

I have started this family law blog to provide up-to-date and accurate information concerning divorce, separation, custody, child support and other family law issues.

I have been a Rochester, New York, family law lawyer since 1996, helping people in Rochester, Monroe County, and nearby counties. I counsel my clients on separation, divorce, custody, custodial relocation, child support, adoption, parental kidnapping, pre-marital agreements, post-marital agreements, and equitable distribution of property issues, such as business interests, stock options, professional licenses, pensions, and profit-sharing plans.

In addition, I handle collaborative family law cases which allow for amicable resolution of family disputes.

My Website

New York Law Updates

Meta

Expanding Definition of What It Means to Be a Parent

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled last week in Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05903, that a loving caretaker who is not related to, or the adoptive guardian of, a child could still be permitted to ask for custody and visitation rights.

The ruling came from a litigation between a couple, known in family court papers only as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. In 2008, Elizabeth became pregnant with the couple’s child through artificial insemination. Though Brooke had no legal or biological ties to the child, a boy, she maintained a close relationship with him for years, cutting his umbilical cord at birth, giving him her last name and raising him jointly with Elizabeth. In 2013, after their relationship ended, Elizabeth tried to cut off Brooke’s contact with the boy. Brooke sued for custody and visitation privileges, but was turned down by a lower court, which found that legal precedent pursuant to Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), did not define a non-adoptive, non-biological caretaker as a parent.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals overturned Alison D., stating that “the definition of ‘parent’ established by this court 25 years ago in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships.” It further held that “where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.”

While Brooke S.B. seems to be applicable primarily to same sex couples, it is easy to see that the same type of argument may be applicable to heterosexual couples in situations where one partner is artificially inseminated. The Court of Appeals declined to state what the proper test should be in cases where no preconception agreement can be shown to have existed between nonbiological couple. As far as the proof of the parties’ intent, the courts are likely to look at the parties’ participation such activities as birthing classes, partners’ inclusion on birth notices and other traditional indications of the existence of a pre-conception agreement between a couple.